Hylak v. Manor Care - Pike Creek of Wilmington, DE, LLC
N17C-05-001 ALR
Del. Super. Ct.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Marlene Hylak underwent left total hip replacement and was admitted to Manor Care for rehab on April 11, 2015; on April 14, 2015 Bridget Hylak (her daughter) signed a Voluntary Arbitration Agreement presented by Manor Care, but Marlene did not sign it.
- At the time Bridget signed the arbitration form she did not hold a power of attorney (the durable POA in favor of Bridget was executed by Marlene on March 15, 2016).
- Shortly after admission (April 19–21, 2015) Marlene experienced increasing hip pain, drainage, infection, a fractured femur around the prosthesis, hospital admission, and surgical treatment including removal of the prosthesis.
- Plaintiff (Bridget), acting as Marlene’s POA (filed March 2016), sued Manor Care on April 13, 2017 for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful/wanton conduct causing Marlene’s injuries.
- Manor Care moved to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration, arguing the April 14 arbitration agreement (signed by Bridget) requires arbitration; Plaintiff contends Bridget lacked authority to bind Marlene and Manor Care knew she lacked authority.
- The Superior Court denied Manor Care’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the motion to stay for arbitration, finding no adequate proof Bridget had actual or apparent authority on April 14, 2015 and no valid POA existed at that time to effect a waiver of jury trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration agreement signed April 14, 2015 binds Marlene | Bridget lacked authority to bind Marlene; Marlene never signed | Bridget’s signature constitutes actual or apparent authority to bind Marlene | Court: Not bound — Manor Care failed to show actual or apparent authority on April 14 |
| Whether a power of attorney in March 2016 retroactively validates the April 2015 signature | POA executed later cannot validate an earlier purported waiver | POA indicates Bridget acted as agent and supports enforcement | Court: POA executed in 2016 cannot retroactively confer authority in April 2015 |
| Whether Manor Care reasonably relied on any apparent authority | Manor Care knew/should have known Bridget lacked authority; cannot rely on her signature | Manor Care relied on documents signed at admission and can enforce agreement | Court: Manor Care did not establish reasonable reliance on apparent authority |
| Whether the court should dismiss or stay proceedings for arbitration | Plaintiff opposes arbitration; asserts right to jury and no enforceable arbitration agreement | Manor Care seeks dismissal/stay and arbitration | Court: Denied dismissal and stay; retained jurisdiction and litigation proceeds in court |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon v. Pathe Commc’n Corp., 672 A.2d 35 (Del. 1996) (standards for motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1))
- Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Steigler, 300 A.2d 16 (Del. Super. 1972) (court’s authority to stay proceedings and avoid undue prejudice)
- Edelist v. MBNA Am. Bank, 790 A.2d 1249 (Del. Super. 2001) (arbitration agreements can waive jury trial rights)
- James & Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, 906 A.2d 76 (Del. 2006) (presumption against arbitration absent clear and unmistakable evidence)
- Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 A.2d 908 (Del. 1989) (unenforceability and unconscionability principles for contractual waivers)
- Billops v. Magness Const. Co., 391 A.2d 196 (Del. 1978) (actual authority and agency principles)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (standard for staying proceedings to control docket)
- Pettinaro Constr. Co. v. Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, 408 A.2d 957 (Del. Ch. 1979) (limits on compelling arbitration and contract interpretation)